I didn't mean to say emotions are inherently feminine, just that they keep getting branded as such and dismissed because of it and that I think that's bad.

It is indeed bad; I'll present the flip side of the problem with that stereotyping.

My epilepsy was misdiagnosed from age eight to age thirty, so, unsurprisingly, the medications that my doctors tried either didn't work at all, or made me ill. The epilepsy I suffer from is "partial-complex seizures." Unlike gran mal or petit mal seizures, the sufferer does not loose consciousness in a partial-complex seizure. But the brain is still firing in an over-stimulated and somewhat randomized manner. The result, in my case, often involved hallucinations--aural, visual, and kinesthetic--along with literally uncontrollable, screaming panic attacks. And I mean terror on the scale of truly believing that the shadows around the room were filled with demons come to take my soul to Hell. Not a fun time for a growing boy.

Now, it wasn't just in my visual cortex that the seizures were occurring; quite often, as a prelude to a seizure or as an aftermath, I would be experiencing very intense, irrational emotions--emotional responses very out of scale to what would seem to trigger them. Bear in mind: this was a brain that occasionally liked to short out on its own juices.

I'll spare y'all the pity party of what it's like trying to grow up like that. But I will point out that I am definitel... :checks: Yup! Definitely a male, and that my emotions were often uncontrollable due to a biological mis-wiring in my central nervous system, and that I grew up during a time when gender stereotyping was actually presented on Nova as current scientific knowledge. (We've all grown a bit wiser since then.)

It all added up to some serious developmental problems with emotions and with self-image. Thankfully, I was a pretty smart kid with a voracious appetite for the written word and a deep love of physics and astrophysics. So, I was able to convince myself that I was a Vulcan. (Go ahead and chuckle; it is kind of amusing! But, it also kind of helped; for a while, that fantasy served me as a pretty effective defense mechanism.)

So, the TL;DR: emotions are real, and males have emotions, too, and, thanks to gender-typing, kids with emotional problems get those problems compounded, regardless of their gender. It can only hurt everyone, to buy into a stereotype such as "women are more emotional than men," or, "emotions are inherently feminine."_________________I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning

So is vitriol supposed to be some sort of preventative measure? Because that's a really upsetting notion.

Gosh, I hope the metaphor wasn't lost on you. Vitriol is a great word, though.

Basically, I agree with you. When possible, rational discussions are the most communicative and ideal. We need to firmly establish that the lunch box is a private, personal place of importance that should be respected and not meddled with in any way. But unfortunately, folks like Bill O'Reily have got their fingers firmly in their ears, microphones in front of their mouths and their asses all over my eating place, and there are a lot of people who have come to accept that that is an acceptable format for "discussion."

Real, honest to god questions here that I've been working on for a while now: How can we fix that without making people uncomfortable? How can we not be frustrated and disheartened by it? And why the heck can't we enjoy the few soap boxes that our ideas do have, like Sinfest, without people complaining about it?_________________Live to laugh.

plus there's another dynamic at work. if you bounce over to the other side of the argument over some social issue just for the sake of fun or experimenting in principles or something, then you're trivializing the emotional import of that principle the other person holds. because bouncing over to play devil's advocate contains the assumption that it's of no more importance than whether you choose the black pieces or the white pieces on the chess board. which is a pretty good way to piss someone off.

Is there something wrong with that? Do you not think that there are misogynists who seriously believe feminism is a direct personal attack on them/their manhood? I think having a stance in general is what really ought to upset people. They are, after all, the ones who believe that something of emotional import is not just trivial, but wrong.

Hopefully you see the silliness in arguing that something makes people upset shouldn't exist. If not, well... A good devil's advocate shouldn't ever be surprised that people are upset

What's a good devil's advocate? Is it "good" to attempt to support an argument that you know will upset people for no greater purpose than to instigate an argument? I'm all for playing devil's advocate when it serves a purpose. I play devil's advocate all the time when I'm talking to people about interpersonal conflicts, because it's easy to get stuck in a rut and be unable to view a situation any other way, but therein lies its purpose - allowing people to gain a constructive perspective. If it lacks a constructive purpose then you're just, as Monkey says, a fuckspigot._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Gosh, I hope the metaphor wasn't lost on you. Vitriol is a great word, though.

A liiittle bit

Quote:

But unfortunately, folks like Bill O'Reily have got their fingers firmly in their ears, microphones in front of their mouths and their asses all over my eating place, and there are a lot of people who have come to accept that that is an acceptable format for "discussion."

Those people are wrong. You don't engage with folks like Bill O'Reily.

Quote:

Real, honest to god questions here that I've been working on for a while now: How can we fix that without making people uncomfortable?

You don't. No philosopher or education reformer in their right minds has said that it's possible.

Quote:

How can we not be frustrated and disheartened by it?

A heart of a stronger metal than gold? Unwavering dedication to a cause? Beats me.

Quote:

And why the heck can't we enjoy the few soap boxes that our ideas do have, like Sinfest, without people complaining about it?

Who cares if people complain? _________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

But unfortunately, folks like Bill O'Reily have got their fingers firmly in their ears, microphones in front of their mouths and their asses all over my eating place, and there are a lot of people who have come to accept that that is an acceptable format for "discussion."

Those people are wrong. You don't engage with folks like Bill O'Reily.

But the people on the receiving end of their broadcasts are the people who vote against my rights. I need to engage, if not with O'Reilly, with his disciples.

Quote:

Quote:

Real, honest to god questions here that I've been working on for a while now: How can we fix that without making people uncomfortable?

You don't. No philosopher or education reformer in their right minds has said that it's possible.

Okay. So growth and change are, by nature, uncomfortable. When the people who would benefit from the growth are a political minority, and the people with the majority of the power benefit from the status quo, it's really hard to get society as a whole to accept the change. It's going to require a long, uncomfortable, gradual shifting period.

I do think it's happening. But it would be so easy to back track, or to stagnate, if these issues aren't discussed. The powerful people are already content, and are working to keep themselves in power. The rest of us need to be aware of that process and constantly work for our right to be content as well. That's why I like artists like Tat, who aren't afraid to call it like they see it and keep the discussion alive. I hope to be that kind of artist some day.

Quote:

Quote:

And why the heck can't we enjoy the few soap boxes that our ideas do have, like Sinfest, without people complaining about it?

Who cares if people complain?

Well, I guess people will always complain. Ad nauseum. Even though they've already made every point they possibly could on the subject. They just can't let it alone for the people who like it to enjoy._________________Live to laugh.

I can see the point of a "devil's advocate" in certain situations, but as far as I can tell they all involve a debate team and not an actual argument.

Would standing up for someone who isn't present count as being a devil's advocate?

I suppose in some cases it could, although I believe it is more about taking a certain point of view that is not necessarily your own. But here is a good example along these lines. I'm not easily offended, pretty easy going and let stuff slide right off. If somebody told a joke that a lot of people would find very offensive I could play devil's advocate and say something like "You probably shouldn't tell jokes like that because would offend a lot of people."

A good thing to note, in that case I don't even have to agree with either side to play devil's advocate. I'm just pointing out a view that counters their own._________________My deviantArt - Blog-ity blog

But the people on the receiving end of their broadcasts are the people who vote against my rights. I need to engage, if not with O'Reilly, with his disciples.

Quote:

Well, I guess people will always complain. Ad nauseum. Even though they've already made every point they possibly could on the subject. They just can't let it alone for the people who like it to enjoy.

On the one hand, there is, as you have given with your Bill O'Reilly example, the idea that you should get the message out there anyway. No doubt there will be people who might go so far as to hate you for it. On the other hand, people argue that bringing up sexism and racism in the media and in the system as a whole puts a damper on their day-- those damn feminists just can't leave our television alone, can they?-- so... it's really unclear sometimes. Perhaps you are as confused as I am? _________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

I can see the point of a "devil's advocate" in certain situations, but as far as I can tell they all involve a debate team and not an actual argument.

Would standing up for someone who isn't present count as being a devil's advocate?

Traditionally a devil's advocate has a role in testing the strength of an argument. The devil's advocate would play the part of a detractor to see how the original argument stands up to scrutiny, allowing proponents to see if it holds water, needs to be modified, or possibly abandoned. It's a helpful role that can prevent echo chamber effects when it's being played by someone with the right motive, and not by a fuckspigot.

It works best when the person playing devil's advocate is versed in the subject and interested in developing strong, rational arguments, since it doesn't help to have ignorant or irrational people test a theory. Which is why when someone rambles on at length and then says they were just playing devil's advocate you can say they were really just being a dick._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

It works best when the person playing devil's advocate is versed in the subject and interested in developing strong, rational arguments, since it doesn't help to have ignorant or irrational people test a theory. Which is why when someone rambles on at length and then says they were just playing devil's advocate you can say they were really just being a dick.

Finally, some clarity. Marginalized feelings or not, these things need to happen._________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

The Techs were programming the Fembots with only one perspective, implicitly giving them no choice about whether or not to consider any other. Curly provided them with additional data, that's all.

In a way, by deeming the Fembots worthy of being told more than what the Techs were telling them, Curly was treating the Fembots as people, which was more than the Techs were doing.

Their minds must flower because knowledge is power.

If Curly's data was one-sided, well, so was what the Techs were programming into the Fembots to begin with. The Techs' data deified men while Curly's data demonized men. Sure, two wrongs don't make a right but nobody in the strip said that what Curly did was right in the first place.

The Techs were programming the Fembots with only one perspective, implicitly giving them no choice about whether or not to consider any other. Curly provided them with additional data, that's all.

In a way, by deeming the Fembots worthy of being told more than what the Techs were telling them, Curly was treating the Fembots as people, which was more than the Techs were doing.

Their minds must flower because knowledge is power.

If Curly's data was one-sided, well, so was what the Techs were programming into the Fembots to begin with. The Techs' data deified men while Curly's data demonized men. Sure, two wrongs don't make a right but nobody in the strip said that what Curly did was right in the first place.

Two wrongs don't make a right but they do create drama.

Yup basically.

It's like saying to someone all of their life that "God is great, god is beauty, god is the one true being of light." and then someone handing them proof of all of the horrors that god has done.

The devils are essentially being that sort of god, they're training the fembots to believe they should be subservient, and then Curly has shown them all of the horrors which have been done to women throughout time, which they are supposed to not know about, and instead be calm and subservient and do everything to "please their man" which is what the devils want.

So when they're shown all of the horrors which have been hidden from them, of course they're angry.

Of course with a lot of humans what happens instead is they ignore the bad and pretend it doesn't happen.

Like if you've got a girl from a white suburban life who's raised lovingly and with care and taught to want to grow up and be homemaker with 2.4 children and a husband. Then they find out the stats on abuse, such as the fact the number one murder rate for women is their partners killing them and that there's such things as forced pregnancy, wife beating, being denied their own money etc. and of course they'll either be angry or pretend it just /won't happen to them/._________________- explanation of feminism -

wow, I really didn't things could get much worse after someone said "is female genital mutilation really all that bad?"

Well, if people genuinely don't know exactly what the practice consists of, it's understandable that they wonder about how bad it is.

When I was younger and even more uninformed and naive than at present (hard though that may be to imagine), I thought that child pornography "simply" consisted of photographs of nude children, because that was my entire concept of any form of pornography: photographs of nude people. Period. I didn't know that pornography consisted of anything else because I didn't (and don't) have any particular interest in pornography of any sort.

So I was like "well, yeah, it's bad to photograph nude children, but it doesn't sound as downright evil as I hear everyone saying child pornography is."

I subsequently learned more about the subject and discovered that child pornography can be more accurately described as photographs of nude children being assaulted and raped.